GrumpyGamer
First Post
The performer on the tightrope, in the second page art, is evocative - but sadly it is not supported by the text description of the bard. This looks to be a missed opportunity.
D&D 5E A bard walks into a bar
Beleriphon
Totally Awesome Pirate Brain
Face Melter! Guitar onomatopoea *WEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOOWWWwikiwikiwikiwikichunchadachunchadachunchada
weedleweedleweedleweedleWEEDLEYWEEDLYWEEDLYWEEDLY*
Eddie is most assuredly a bard.
variant
Adventurer
The 2e bard was basically a hodge-podge of thief abilities and wizard spells. When they finally got their spells, they progressed faster than a wizard which was nice for a few levels since their experience requirement was much lower. However, they couldn't even wear the armor they were proficient in if they wanted to cast their spells.
The 3.5e was incredibly weak, easily the lowest tier class, but it was certainly an improvement in flavor. Though that meant they didn't even get to throw around fireballs like its 2e counterpart. The bardic abilities no way made up for the fact that they were a subpar spellcaster class.
I disregard everything 4e.
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Lowest tier class? Even an unoptimized 3.5 bard is low Tier 3, at worst a high Tier 4. And there's no class that got more love in 3.5 splatbooks than the bard. Seriously, Dragonfire Inspiration? Sublime Chord? A well built bard in 3.5 challenged for Tier 2 status.
variant
Adventurer
Some obscure feat from the Dragon Magic book, something I didn't even own, and a prestige class to patch over they didn't even get 9th level spells. That shows some real great class design there. If you start throwing in those other books, every class got much more powerful feats and prestige classes.
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
None of which argues against the premise that 3.5 bards are not weak. Balance considerations are generally assumed to be against the entirety of the first-party books released for that edition. If you're playing core-only, that impacts balance at your table, not for the edition as a whole.
variant
Adventurer
Every class gets an increase in power with the later books. It isn't something exclusive to the bard. You need to compare the bard running around with the Sublime Chord to other classes running around with prestige classes from the later books.
Dungeoneer
First Post
Dayum, that guitar, er, lute in the art is serious badass!!!
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Yes, I'm aware, and the tier system is based around an assumption of moderate optimization with regards to Prestige Classes, spell choices, and feats.
We are talking about the same tier system, aren't we? When you said "lowest tier", I assumed we were talking about JaronK's tier system.
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
If you've ever seen Gamers 2, there's a line in there that kind of summarizes this for me. The Bard is playing his lute and standing at the back of the party. One of the PCs says "God dammit, man, HELP!" and the Bard says "I *AM* helping!".*sigh* A bard that can't sing (oh, Song of Rest, sorry - can't sing in combat), & can only affect its allies one at a time. The class is dead to me.
I'd prefer a Bard whose entire purpose wasn't to use nothing but one ability every combat. And especially not to have that ability be "I play my instrument...look at all the bonuses the rest of you get".
Not only did it almost never add up mathematically(It was almost always a better idea to attack with your weapon than to give bonuses to the rest of the party), but it seems silly that in character ANYONE would consider playing an instrument to be as useful as actually fighting.
I don't mind a character who inspires but doing it continuously and doing it by playing music...not sure about that.
Similar Threads
